1,000 Percent Tax Increase On ‘Assault Weap

[Seadog]

The law against class three of anything firearm related is against the Constitution!

"The the right to keep and bare ARMS shall not be infringed!"

Pop gun, machine gun, short barrel, long barrel, etc etc! They are all arms!

I agree with you on the unconstitutionality of it. That aside it is long established since 1934 and the fines are steep for not complying with their unconstitutionality. That was more my point about class 3s weapons. It doesn’t matter how much we dislike it, the government will stick it in sideways

 

[dennishoddy]

Democrat Idjits. This will get struck down by the courts or with the Supreme Court if it gets that far. This is taxing a constitutional right. These aren’t class three machine guns. Democrats don’t have to like it but these are common place and there are millions of them which in itself exempt them.

Ok, I’m going to take on being the devils advocate.
The gubberment taxes our suppressors, what stops them from taxing our rifles?

 

[Gideon]

Ok, I’m going to take on being the devils advocate.
The gubberment taxes our suppressors, what stops them from taxing our rifles?

Important reminder: sales tax on weapons is a poll tax.

I don't think a 1,000% tax would pass, but someone might suggest adding things to the NFA as a de facto registration/background check/tax scheme.
They might start small, something like adding to the NFA any weapon that accepts a certain size magazine, or all semi-auto rifles and handguns.

A "high capacity" (whatever that means) magazine ban with currently owned ones grandfathered in would also be more likely to pass than a lot of the off the wall suggestions we've heard.

My hope is that they try to overstep, try to pass something crazy and not play the slow, long game. The more the Grabber's patience wears thin, the more likely they are to do rash things that we can openly resist.

 

[Seadog]

Whether it is a fully automatic, semi automatic, single shot, they are all forms of a machine (gun) right?

No. Automatic is a full auto machine gun/rifle. Semi automatic is sometimes referred to fully semi automatic by Democrats to make it sound scary but there’s no such thing. Semiautomatic / semi auto means one shot per trigger pull. It does not fire more then one round per trigger pull.

I’m not sure if you’re trying to be funny because if you were it went right over my head.

 

[Seadog]

Ok, I’m going to take on being the devils advocate.
The gubberment taxes our suppressors, what stops them from taxing our rifles?

Ok devils advocate. Those suppressors and other fun toys have been restricted for a long time. Either since 1934, 1968 or 1986. I’ll use the word precedent. That’s just how it’s been and it’s been accepted. In my opinion there would be a major backlash and uproar. Not to mention I think there’d be enough people saying that there would have to be an amendment to the 2A in order for this to legally happen.

For them to attempt to do this now would be like taxing us going to the voting polls. It wouldn’t fly in my opinion especially with the Supreme Court justices that we have now thanks to the real President Donald J Trump.

These guns have been in private hands since 1955. There are millions of them in circulation. They weren’t restricted in 1968 or 1986. On top of this they are mentioned in the Heller Supreme Court decision as Justice Antonin Scalia stated. They are common place. Nothing like the few hundred thousand machine guns that are on the registry. There are millions of AR style weapons in circulation right now. The modern sporting rifle as some like to say.

I seem to recall Connecticut banning the position of these style rifles within the last decade. There was major noncompliance including law-enforcement. They estimated over 100,000 that were not turned in. I can picture the major majority of people giving the bird to the Democrats if this should ever actually succeed.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

My angrification meter is pegged. I need to reset the scale.

"The power and ignorance of liberals to disenfranchise We the People shall not be infringed." Really, though, it doesn't need to be enumerated. We'll see what happens in November. I'm still concerned, however. From what I see, what they don't earn they will steal.

Woody

 

[Chuckie]

IF there was ever a chance of it passing and IF it were actually enforced, I might be able to support a ban on lobbyists being allowed to deduct the cost of the alcohol, hookers and blow they provide to politicians.
(Who am I kidding, the people paying the lobbyists would just stick it to the little people even harder to pay for it.....)

It's not the Federal but the State government that concerns me. Some of the States have passed anti-2nd Amendment laws and anti-gun restrictions that would never pass muster in a federal court but seem to have held up well on the State level (California-NTM, New York, Masachussettes, New Jersey, etc.). And like cancer, this type of insanity tends to spread.

 

[Chuckie]

The law against class three of anything firearm related is against the Constitution!

"The the right to keep and bare ARMS shall not be infringed!"

Pop gun, machine gun, short barrel, long barrel, etc etc! They are all arms!

True, but look at how many restrictions have been placed on gun and gun accessory ownership, not only on the Federal level but more importantly, within the individual States. So much for ". . . shall not be infringed."

 

[John6185]

I read that if they control ammunition they will have won.

 

[Gideon]

It's not the Federal but the State government that concerns me. Some of the States have passed anti-2nd Amendment laws and anti-gun restrictions that would never pass muster in a federal court but seem to have held up well on the State level (California-NTM, New York, Masachussettes, New Jersey, etc.). And like cancer, this type of insanity tends to spread.

We've made significant progress in gun rights across even some more liberal states in the last couple of decades.

The ideal situation is that the gap between the states you mentioned and the rest of us widens. The greater the difference between the states, the harder the federals have to work to keep the peace, and the possibility of a peaceful divorce increases.